The biblical truth is a dialectical equation

[Episkopos]

The bible is written as a "dialectic"...where there is a thesis...an antithesis..and when these agree we have synthesis. it is a way to understanding the truth based on the way our brains work. We have 2 poles in our brain that function each separately. It's what allows us to become hypocrites for instance. So it is only as BOTH sides of the brain are brought into the mix that we can perceive what truth is. Most people will argue from one side or the other..so that they never are able to grasp the truth. instead they have "their" truth...a side of a truth.

A good example of this in religion is the Calvinist/Armenian dialectic.

So then neither is right. But by looking at arguments from BOTH sides we can arrive at a balanced understanding.

But this takes work and lots of thinking things out. As Einstein once said...thinking is hard work..that's why so few people do it!

 

[marks]

I think the Bible says one thing, and does not contradict itself. That's what people do. Take this Calvin/Arminian debate, there is a single truth, not two contradictory truths. And you don't learn what's real by delving deeper into people's arguments, it's by coming to understand the Bible in a way that your view harmonizes with All the Scriptures.

Imo, it's only when we don't really understand a passage or a doctrine that we think there is conflict, thesis and antithesis within the Bible.

I think the hard work is in learning how to unlearn what we've learned, so that we can receive the Word of Truth.

Much love!

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

marks,

I think the Bible says one thing, and does not contradict itself.

Luke 1 King James Version (KJV)
1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

That's what people do. Take this Calvin/Arminian debate, there is a single truth, not two contradictory truths[/QUOTE].

Yes. The closer we get to it, the more effective we will be as a witness.

And you don't learn what's real by delving deeper into people's arguments, it's by coming to understand the Bible in a way that your view harmonizes with All the Scriptures.

Yes...this is it.

Imo, it's only when we don't really understand a passage or a doctrine that we think there is conflict, thesis and antithesis within the Bible.

This is why there is much contention on messageboards.
The true thesis/antithesis in scripture is clear:
Ezk22:
26 Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shewed difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them.

I think the hard work is in learning how to unlearn what we've learned, so that we can receive the Word of Truth.

Yes, that is in part why pastors are not to be novices.

Good post.

 

[Episkopos]

I think the Bible says one thing, and does not contradict itself. That's what people do. Take this Calvin/Arminian debate, there is a single truth, not two contradictory truths. And you don't learn what's real by delving deeper into people's arguments, it's by coming to understand the Bible in a way that your view harmonizes with All the Scriptures.

Imo, it's only when we don't really understand a passage or a doctrine that we think there is conflict, thesis and antithesis within the Bible.

I think the hard work is in learning how to unlearn what we've learned, so that we can receive the Word of Truth.

Much love!

Surely you are exaggerating any understanding you have concerning the OP. God has hidden the truth so that very few can understand it. That's why we are to search for it as for hid treasure. The people that say they understand the bible understand it the least. And God made it that way.

And I marvel at this...to see the wisdom of it.

 

[Episkopos]

So...if none are righteous according to a few verses in the bible...how do we end up with this? Both are recorded in the NT (Real answers only please)

Romans 3:10
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

maybe Luke didn't get the memo???

Luke 1:6
6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

Real explanations only...

 

[marks]

Surely you are exaggerating any understanding you have concerning the OP. God has hidden the truth so that very few can understand it. That's why we are to search for it as for hid treasure. The people that say they understand the bible understand it the least. And God made it that way.

And I marvel at this...to see the wisdom of it.

I'm curious about what example you would show us of two places where you see a dialectic in Scripture. Perhaps we are not using the word in the same way? Though I think we likely are.

Interesting that here again, right out of the gate, you open with personally disparaging comment. "Surely you are exaggerating any understanding you have concerning . . ." Put downs just don't add to the discussion. I know, it gets you some likes, and that speaks for itself.

No one can understand the Bible, but God's Holy Spirit reveals it's truths to us.

But seriously, examples to support your assertion?

Personally, I think the idea that the Bible contains "dialectics", in other words thesis and antithesis, a propositional statement, then a contrary propositional statement, from which we derive a newly synthesized propositional truth, which is then our new thesis, anyway, I think that all that is more a method to put someone's own meaning into the text, in that the synthesis is not something shown from Scripture, rather, from one's own reasoning.

I think it's better to, when one sees what appears to be a conflict in the Bible, study both places more, laying aside previously held views, to be able to see fresh, and to hopefully find where we may not have been correctly understanding one, or even both of those places.

Much love!

 

[marks]

So...if none are righteous according to a few verses in the bible...how do we end up with this? Both are recorded in the NT (Real answers only please)

Romans 3:10
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

maybe Luke didn't get the memo???

Luke 1:6
6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

Real explanations only...

Gee! And I guess Paul must not have read Job!

"There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil."

So . . . what if we look at what each passage is teaching us, for what the Word is saying, do you really think that there is conflict, and that somehow we have to arrive at some "middle ground", the synthesis of your dialectic? So that neither passage is true in it's own right?

I think first it behooves us to clarify what the apparent conflict is, and see if each passage actually attests to it's assigned side of the conflict.

Personally I think that we can receive the full meaning of each passage in it's own right, without any perceived conflict.

Much love!

 

[Episkopos]

So...if none are righteous according to a few verses in the bible...how do we end up with this? Both are recorded in the NT (Real answers only please)

Romans 3:10
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

maybe Luke didn't get the memo???

Luke 1:6
6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

Real explanations only...

No evangelical can reconcile these seeming contradictions...since Luther based the reformation on there being NO righteousness apart from Christ...that no one can be righteous in one's own strength by the law.

And yet we see people being said to be righteous many times...without Christ.

So for honest people that would spell the end of evangelicalism...and expose it as being a half-truth.

 

[marks]

And yet we see people being said to be righteous many times...without Christ.

By what standard were they righteous? By virtue of having never committed sin? Luke 1:6 gives the clue . . .

And how is this a dialectic? I still don't see that.

 

[Episkopos]

By what standard were they righteous? By virtue of having never committed sin?

You tell me how Zacharias and Elizabeth were blameless and righteous under the law.

And your other responses were typically dishonest. And unless you actually try to think instead of saying meaningless things...I won't respond.

 

[marks]

You tell me how Zacharias and Elizabeth were blameless and righteous under the law.

And your other responses were typically dishonest. And unless you actually try to think instead of saying meaningless things...I won't respond.

Seriously, instead of throwing this back on me with your endless disparaging personal comments, you could simply respond to my question.

You've said the Bible is a dialectic, I don't think so. I disagree with you, and you reply that I'm being dishonest. On and on it goes.

The Bible is not a dialectic, it is truth. Those who say it contradicts itself, and that we need to find the "middle ground", I think, just need to study more, and find where they are misunderstanding.

Respond or not as you choose. But at least own the choice.

If you wish, show how these passages are not both true in their own right, requiring us to find a "synthesis". And if you don't want to, don't.

That's fine.

Or you can continue to post your usual litany against me, but what a waste of time and energy!

 

[marks]

You tell me how Zacharias and Elizabeth were blameless and righteous under the law.

By keeping it, of course. Same as Paul, according to the Law, blameless.

Philippians 3:6-7
". . . touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ."

 

[Episkopos]

Seriously, instead of throwing this back on me with your endless disparaging personal comments, you could simply respond to my question.

You've said the Bible is a dialectic, I don't think so. I disagree with you, and you reply that I'm being dishonest. On and on it goes.

The Bible is not a dialectic, it is truth. Those who say it contradicts itself, and that we need to find the "middle ground", I think, just need to study more, and find where they are misunderstanding.

Respond or not as you choose. But at least own the choice.

If you wish, show how these passages are not both true in their own right, requiring us to find a "synthesis". And if you don't want to, don't.

That's fine.

Or you can continue to post your usual litany against me, but what a waste of time and energy!

More nonsense from you. You won't engage the OP...just look to disagree and derail threads as if knowledge was a virus to be immunized from.



Instead you just say..I don't see a problem with it. Is it reading comprehension? Wilfull blindness?

 

[Episkopos]

By keeping it, of course. Same as Paul, according to the Law, blameless.

Philippians 3:6-7
". . . touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ."

OK so that goes against the idea that none are righteous no not one as a stand alone thesis....the basis for evangelicalism.

So are you renouncing Luther? Do you understand how these things work? Or do you just accept that things don't add up...and walk away.?

 

[Episkopos]

Another foundational dialectic...or "polarity" concerns the law.

Rom. 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

Compare with...

Rom. 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.


So then grace establishes the law.

 

[Episkopos]

Then there is "doing" the law.

Gal. 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Same as...Rom.3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.


But not like this...

Rom. 2:13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified;

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

Then there is "doing" the law.

Gal. 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Same as...Rom.3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.


But not like this...

Rom. 2:13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified;

Christians are law-keepers, not in order to be justified, but because we are justified.
Sin debt paid for, service debt due. rom13
10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

 

[Episkopos]

Christians are law-keepers, not in order to be justified, but because we are justified.
Sin debt paid for, service debt due. rom13
10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

You have it backwards. Read again and again if you have to. And to love is to do the law.

I'm justified so I love? No...they who love are fulfilling the law....not they who are fulfilling the law will love because of that.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

You have it backwards. Read again and again if you have to. And to love is to do the law.

I'm justified so I love? No...they who love are fulfilling the law....not they who are fulfilling the law will love because of that.

Sorry, you describe a works gospel, not a grace gospel. One of us has it backwards and I know who it is, lol

 

[Episkopos]

Sorry, you describe a works gospel, not a grace gospel. One of us has it backwards and I know who it is, lol

That is the conclusion of someone who doesn't yet understand how to think like the bible is written. So you accuse foolishly....the bible itself. Doers of the law are justified....very basic. But your backward reasoning would have justified people then doing. But that is an evangelical falsehood. And very dishonest.

I am laying out the polarities for HONEST seekers to try understanding it....not for religious indoctrinated people to get judgmental based on their inability to discern what truth is. And then to add words in or take words out...or flip the words.

people read the bible everyday and still don't understand basic things through a dishonest reading.